Impact Of Internet Of Things (IoT) On Society: Ethical And Professional Issues

Research Methodology Course Structure

Internet of things may primarily be understood as the interconnection of appliances over the internet to permit the transfer of information and communication among the connected devices (Coetzee and Eksteen 2011, p.8). It involves the integration of actuators, software packages, electronics, and sensors to form up a system that is able to execute the transfer and reception of data from other devices using the internet. The devices are most cases, computing devices that are able to access the internet. Among the various devices that for up internet of things include; phones, personal computers, cars, and robots among others (Sarma and Girão 2009, p.360). Taking a critical analysis of internet of things, reports indicate that, the idea of IOT came in the recent times, that is to say, not older than thirty years. However, it is important to note that there existed the internet in which devices were able to communicate and was simply referred to as “pervasive computing or embedded internet” and was named by Kevin Ashton. In other words, internet of things gained its official name in 1999 (Bi et al. 2014, p.1540)

Looking at the trend of internet of things, it has absolutely changed the way in which people, organizations and businesses are operating. There has been a remarkable change in form of information and communication. Businesses are able to hire employees over the internet, and have their tasks completed without any form of physical or face-to-face interaction. Additionally, individuals and organizations are able to buy and sell their goods over the internet and have it delivered at their doorsteps, information can be backed into cloud storage and accessed remotely from anywhere any time.  However, it is important to note that, much as IOT has brought about a positive change, it has got a dark side of it (Vermesan and Friess 2013). This has been witnessed in cases of hacking, where confidential information belonging to an individual or organization is broke-into without the knowledge of the owner, remotely recording videos using device cameras belong to the owner without their consent, and thus, this is absolutely implies lack of ethics. Furthermore, internet of things has led to loss of information as a result of virus infection, increase in the level of cybercrimes, pornography time wastage among others. In other words, its been reported that the invention of IoT has led to tremendous improvement in the world and yet on the other hand, other scholars indicate that it is of more harm than its relevance (Sundmaeker et al. 2010, p.35).

Internet of Things: Concept and Evolution

How has the invention and adaptation of internet of thing changed the organizational performance

What are the possible consequences that arise as a result of the adaptation of internet of things

In what ways can the negative influences of internet of things be restrained to make it more relevance for the development of the world?

 Past development and history

Internet of things did not just sprout out in one day; it has a background in the invention and innovation of a series of technologies. Reports highlight that, the inspiration and motivation of Kurzweil in the 1950s to formulate the law of accelerating returns basing on the findings of the intensification of technology in artificial intelligence, biotechnologies, communication, and information technologies among others are directly linked to the beginning of development and improvement in the connection of machines for the transfer of data (Miorandi et al. 2012, p.1450).

From the reports, it is argued that IoT is as a result of the fact of changing complex phenomenon into simple through the use of logical exponential technological upgrade. This is anchored on the law of accelerating returns, which was put forward by Kurzweil. In this law, he highlights that the extensive logical and exponential trend of new inventions and innovation is being streamlined into making a more interconnected networks of devices (Giusto et al. 2010). Later in 2005, it was further argued by Kurzweil that internet of things is gaining a gradual improvement that involves the solicitation on new discoveries that are coming up as a result of technological innovations (Swan 2012, p.250).

Relating to the trend of progress, it is speculated that, there will come a time in the future when the contribution of technology (internet of things in particular) will exceed the performance of humans including the basic ability of intelligence (Vermesan and Friess 2014). In this context, it is believed that there will be attempts of integrating humans with the appliances i.e., the insertion of microchips into humans so that there will bea systematic coordination of the body and the microchips inserted. This implies that humans will as well be part of the internet of things thus being able to communicate wirelessly and globally with the help of internet (Jin et al. 2014, p.119). Through the integration of humans into the internet of things, scholars present it that the integrated humans will be able to perform extraordinarily, a million times more than the usual biological or unintegrated humans. In this essence, the researchers predict a community/ society that will predominantly be run on internet of things. However, this is leaving a lot of unanswered questions regarding the way in which the society will operate (Medaglia and Serbanati, 2010, p.390). In other words, the likely impacts of such a trend in the society, if it will be positive or rather more dissimilar effects.

Positive and Negative Impacts of IoT

As highlighted earlier, there has been a remarkable evolution in the field of IoT from its time of invention. There has been massive improvement in which devices can connect and communicate even more faster than before. Individuals and organizations are currently integrating Internet of Things into businesses and daily operations in order to save costs, time saving as well as achieving effective operation. In other words, it is substantially true that internet of things has become part of the daily operations of the society, and this is witnessed right from the way businesses are operating to communication (Uckelmann Harrison and Michahelles 2011, p.20).

Today, over 70% of individuals aged 16 years and above are registered on social media such as Facebook, whatsapp, messenger, imo, instagram among others. This has permitted communication directly to specific individuals or a definite group of people (Holler et al. 2014). Looking at this from a positive trend, internet of things has brought about a reduction in the cost of communication between and among individuals and organizations of different localities (Weber 2010, p.23). People are able to communicate inter-continentally while making use of internet of things. Research conducted in relating to university students indicated that, over 78% of the total university students have smart phones with Facebook installed in the phones (Rifkin 2014). Furthermore, the research showed that of the 70% total student population with smart phones, 55% visit there Facebook accounts at least 5 times a day. This trend demonstrates an alarming adaptation of internet of things in the daily life in the society.

 However, the recent studies reported that there are increasingly many negative influences arising from the use IoT (Botta et al. 2016, 700). When steps are being undertaken to curb insecurity, it should be of no surprise that, even with the high level of security being directed towards internet of things, there are considerably many cases being reporting regarding the misuse in internet of things. This brings the concern of ethical issues (Li et al. 2015, 250).

As hinted earlier, internet of things has substantially altered the way in which societies and communities operate globally. This has been witnessed rite from communal association to behaviors. Various questions are being raised regarding the impact of internet of things (Mattern and Floerkemeier 2010, p.252). Basing on earlier research findings, there is lack of consistency in the types of reports made. Some scholars reported that, internet of things is highly raising ethical concerns. This is witnessed by the facts that there has been release of strong ammunitions that uses an integral technology of internet of things. Various cases related to technological improvement, including internet of things have been reported in which millions of lives were destroyed and there are still further effects of such ammunitions. A case in study is the nuclear bombing that took place in japan; there are still effects in the biological living things inhabiting in affected localities of the phenomenon (Manyika et al. 2013)

Possible Consequences of IoT Adaptation

Due to the high adaptation of internet of things, there are increasing situations of immorality. This is highly linked to the pornographic literature that are wirelessly accessed by inappropriate group of people more especially the young generation. As a result of viewing and reading such immoral literatures, they tend to copy and end up engaging in the same immoral activity (Han et al. 2013, p.630). Precisely, there are infinitely many ethical issues being raised as a result of massive integration of internet of things into the society. It impedes people’s privacy, yet its supposed to respect and honor peoples confidentiality and not to collect information on the habits according to its code of ethics. There has been many issues involving hacking of relevant information regarding/ belonging to specific organization in response for money. In other words, internet of things has facilitated the breaching of privacy of individuals and organizations with is unethical (Fleisch, 2010).

However, on the other hand, there are researchers who have it that internet of thing has created a substantial positive effects on the way the society operates. Internet of things has ethically helped in the improvement of relationship people. Individuals and organizations are able to wirelessly communicate with colleagues while using considerable low costs. Internet of things has also helped in the improvement of health. According to Atzori et al. (2010) there has been a remarkable improvement in health due to the development and integration of internet of things in the health care system. This is absolutely true asthere are a number of biotechnical machines that wireless detect and report danger in patient care units. Vermesan et al. (2011) also elaborated on the reduction of theft with the help of internet of things. Today, phones, cars, and computers can wirelessly be located when need arises for example in cases of theft and fraud. Internet of things provide a ground to find markets for products because a company can post about the existence of products and consumers can know about them, the data transmitted through the internet of things. It also keeps the people engaged in the use of internet of things up-to-date about anything taking place, it also provides platform for protecting the people from certain wrong people and wrong places such that people may not fall a victim in the hands of people (Islam et al. 2015, p.702)

It is important to note that the sources of divergence on the ethical issues relating to internet of things are the core sources of the gaps that prevail and are dependent on how the respective individuals define ethical issues. What may be ethical to a one society may not necessarily be ethical in another society (Hwang et al. 2013). This therefore calls for more attention for the investigation of such divergences. In this case, there is need for the consideration of ethical relativism during the identification of such phenomenon.

Ethical Issues Surrounding IoT

There are various methods, ways that are normally used to collect data in a research project like this and they always vary in relation with which type of data is being collected. These methodologies must provide a quantitative and qualitative research; examples of these methodologies include survey method, questionnaires, interviews, case study method, and observations. However, it should be understood that every data collection technique can collect reliable data when it is well applied and each of them has got both advantages and disadvantages of using it to collect data. The quality of data collected also depends on the type of research methodology chosen (Botta et al. 2014, p.25). The various methodology are as follows:

This refers to when the researcher sites a visit to witness on the research topic being researched and documents whatever aspects seen. It involves interactions between the researcher and the participants and even those that are not participants may be included. It provides a source any additional information to back up data collected by another technique and it should be understood that using observation as the technique to collect data will lead to a result full of errors. Observation method maybe of an advantage in collecting data because it is suitable to access situations or people that cant be accessed with questionnaires and interviews can’t be used and can be used in practical situations and it has a disadvantage that it needs the researcher to conduct and also it is time consuming (Zorzi et al. 2010).

This involves a group discussion organized to share about a certain topic for research purposes. The researcher guides, monitors and records the discussions to gather the data needed, this discussions enables the researcher to discover new things and even better ways to approach the research topic being studied. This finds out a collective response on the research topic, which enables the researcher to come up with a comprehensive conclusion (Xenos and Moy 2007, p.712).

The advantages of using focus groups is that the discussions simplifies the topic being researched and it provides a better way to tackle the topic. Different views are easily collected from the discussion as the participants freely interact with each other. On the other hand however, its disadvantage is that it may deny others who fear to speak their ideas in public, a chance to speak (Xenos and Moy 2007, p.712). In other words, when conducting research using a focus group as a data collection strategy, the individuals who are naturally introverts may not be able to participate, otherwise, they may provide limited information regarding the study.

Challenges faced in Mitigating Negative Influences of IoT

This method basically involves an interviewer and an interviewee and the researcher usually takes the place of the interview. It is a form of interrogation where the researcher asks the respondents their view in regard to a specific topic. In other words, it involves the asking of open questions to the participants/ respondents of the research to find out their view about the topic under study. Most researchers use this method because it provides a detailed information on the research topic and in this method, there is room to ask additional question to get an understanding and also provides an in-depth information (Sundmaeker et al. 2010, p.35). This method has more advantages like detailed information is got, there is room for additional data while collecting data and data collect is in-depth enough to come up with a conclusion but however, it has also some disadvantages that it consumes time in collecting and analyzing data.

This is another most common method of data collection that involves designing question-forms relating to the study being conducted. This method does not consume time and can be done even in the absence of the researcher. A large number needs to be considered so as to reduce errors from the findings.

Questionnaire method does not allow the participants to explain their responses but only avails them with the option of giving short answers. In other words, questionnaire do not provide detailed information regarding a particular topic. This is because standards are set and the answers are limited to specific topics and this is not the best way to conclude on the research and they don’t provide honest answers because at times the participant is stack but end giving even a wrong answer than leaving the question without answering. Furthermore, questionnaires also involve high expenses, as it needs many requirements for it to be executed or carried out. There must be enough financial base to fund the purchase of printing papers, printing, typing, and pens. This makes the method more expensive as compared to other research data collection methods (Botta et al. 2014, p.25). Questionnaire is also limited to only elite participants as it involves reading of the provided questions, interpreting and writing brief answers. This is an implication that for this method to be chosen, the researcher must be targeting only the elite class.

Survey

Survey method involves the sampling of different individual units of the population in question. In this method, samples are collected from the population with a definite selection method and usually used to represent the entire population under investigation. Survey method is related to interview method but it deals with large number of participants at once for the final conclusion to be drawn. It provides data that can be explained or expressed in numerical values and can be analyzed. This data collection method is good for identifying the gaps left out but it promises in large numbers in the research not deep information (Medaglia and Serbanati, 2010, p.390)

As illustrated and evaluated previously, all the methods are appropriate depending on the type of data that the researcher is targeting or intending to collect. In other words, the data collection method is chosen in line with the research questions and research objectives. If the data collection method satisfies, the final intended target, then it qualifies.

This research will consider focus groups method to collect data about the impacts of the internet of things in our societies today; this considers a group discussion that will be conducted to understand the views of different respondents as far as internet of things is concerned. The collected view of the participants will be grouped and analyzed so as to get a conclusion on the influence of the internet of things in the society. This will be done in three different groups in three occasions to get their views (Sarma and Girão 2009, p.360).

This research will also consider the interview method to collected detailed information because it allows the researcher to go into a deep interaction with the participants and to ask an additional questions to get an additional information. This permits the participants also to ask for clarifications anything that is not understood. Since focus groups will find out the collective view of the participants, interviews will enable to gather a detailed and in-depth information.

Conclusion

The research study will therefore focus on establishing a reliable and dependent results by making best use of appropriate research methodologies. The findings will be critically analyzed and carefully evaluated to provide the most reliable representation of the entire reflection of the use of internet of things on the organizational performances. With the help of literature review from previous researchers, it is expected that the study will be of much relevance for the formulation of new policies and recommendations for the basis in which organizations can best adopt internet of things with minimal consequences to the third parties.

References

Atzori, L., Iera, A. and Morabito, G., 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Computer networks, 54(15), pp.2787-2805.

Bi, Z., Da Xu, L. and Wang, C., 2014. Internet of things for enterprise systems of modern manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on industrial informatics, 10(2), pp.1537-1546.

Botta, A., De Donato, W., Persico, V. and Pescapé, A., 2014, August. On the integration of cloud computing and internet of things. In Future internet of things and cloud (FiCloud), 2014 international conference on (pp. 23-30). IEEE.

Botta, A., De Donato, W., Persico, V. and Pescapé, A., 2016. Integration of cloud computing and internet of things: a survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 56, pp.684-700.

Coetzee, L. and Eksteen, J., 2011, May. The Internet of Things-promise for the future? An introduction. In IST-Africa Conference Proceedings, 2011 (pp. 1-9). IEEE.

Fleisch, E., 2010. What is the internet of things? An economic perspective. Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 5(2).

Giusto, D., Iera, A., Morabito, G. and Atzori, L. eds., 2010. The internet of things: 20th Tyrrhenian workshop on digital communications. Springer Science & Business Media.

Han, C., Jornet, J.M., Fadel, E. and Akyildiz, I.F., 2013. A cross-layer communication module for the Internet of Things. Computer Networks, 57(3), pp.622-633.

Holler, J., Tsiatsis, V., Mulligan, C., Karnouskos, S. and Boyle, D., 2014. From Machine-to-machine to the Internet of Things: Introduction to a New Age of Intelligence. Academic Press.

Hwang, K., Dongarra, J. and Fox, G.C., 2013. Distributed and cloud computing: from parallel processing to the internet of things. Morgan Kaufmann.

Islam, S.R., Kwak, D., Kabir, M.H., Hossain, M. and Kwak, K.S., 2015. The internet of things for health care: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 3, pp.678-708.

Jin, J., Gubbi, J., Marusic, S. and Palaniswami, M., 2014. An information framework for creating a smart city through internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(2), pp.112-121.

Li, S., Da Xu, L. and Zhao, S., 2015. The internet of things: a survey. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(2), pp.243-259.

Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P. and Marrs, A., 2013. Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy (Vol. 180). San Francisco, CA: McKinsey Global Institute.

Mattern, F. and Floerkemeier, C., 2010. From the Internet of Computers to the Internet of Things. In From active data management to event-based systems and more (pp. 242-259). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Medaglia, C.M. and Serbanati, A., 2010. An overview of privacy and security issues in the internet of things. In The Internet of Things (pp. 389-395). Springer, New York, NY.

Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., De Pellegrini, F. and Chlamtac, I., 2012. Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges. Ad hoc networks, 10(7), pp.1497-1516.

Rifkin, J., 2014. The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. St. Martin’s Press.

Sarma, A.C. and Girão, J., 2009. Identities in the future internet of things. Wireless personal communications, 49(3), pp.353-363.

Sundmaeker, H., Guillemin, P., Friess, P. and Woelfflé, S., 2010. Vision and challenges for realising the Internet of Things. Cluster of European Research Projects on the Internet of Things, European Commision, 3(3), pp.34-36.

Swan, M., 2012. Sensor mania! the internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 1(3), pp.217-253.

Uckelmann, D., Harrison, M. and Michahelles, F., 2011. An architectural approach towards the future internet of things. In Architecting the internet of things (pp. 1-24). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Vermesan, O. and Friess, P. eds., 2013. Internet of things: converging technologies for smart environments and integrated ecosystems. River Publishers.

Vermesan, O. and Friess, P. eds., 2014. Internet of things-from research and innovation to market deployment (Vol. 29). Aalborg: River Publishers.

Vermesan, O., Friess, P., Guillemin, P., Gusmeroli, S., Sundmaeker, H., Bassi, A., Jubert, I.S., Mazura, M., Harrison, M., Eisenhauer, M. and Doody, P., 2011. Internet of things strategic research roadmap. Internet of Things-Global Technological and Societal Trends, 1(2011), pp.9-52.

Weber, R.H., 2010. Internet of Things–New security and privacy challenges. Computer law & security review, 26(1), pp.23-30.

Xenos, M. and Moy, P., 2007. Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of communication, 57(4), pp.704-718.

Zorzi, M., Gluhak, A., Lange, S. and Bassi, A., 2010. From today’s intranet of things to a future internet of things: a wireless-and mobility-related view. IEEE Wireless Communications, 17(6). 

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order